OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a designation of frailty using the Adjusted Clinical Groups-diagnoses based computerized predictive model (ACG Dx-PM) can identify an elderly population who (1) have the clinical characteristics of frailty and (2) are frail as determined by the validated Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES), and to determine the ability of these tools to predict adverse outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of administrative and survey data. METHODS: Participants over age 65 years (n = 195) in an outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment study at an Israeli health maintenance organization (HMO) were screened for frailty using the ACG Dx-PM and VES. Administrative and demographic data were also gathered. RESULTS: Compared with ACG nonfrail patients, ACG frail patients were older and less likely to be married; had a higher rate of falls, incontinence, and need for personal care; and had a poorer quality of life consistent with a clinical picture of frailty. The ACG frailty tag identified a frail population using the VES frailty determination as the accepted standard with moderate success (area under the curve 0.62). Adjusting for sex and functional status in backward logistic regression, the ACG frailty tag predicted hospitalizations (P <.032) and the VES frailty tool predicted emergency department visits (P <.016). CONCLUSIONS: The ACG frailty tag identified an elderly population with clinical characteristics of frailty and performed with moderate success compared with the VES. Both tools predicted adverse outcomes in older HMO members. A combined screening approach for frailty using predictive modeling with a function-based survey deserves further study.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a designation of frailty using the Adjusted Clinical Groups-diagnoses based computerized predictive model (ACG Dx-PM) can identify an elderly population who (1) have the clinical characteristics of frailty and (2) are frail as determined by the validated Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES), and to determine the ability of these tools to predict adverse outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of administrative and survey data. METHODS: Participants over age 65 years (n = 195) in an outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment study at an Israeli health maintenance organization (HMO) were screened for frailty using the ACG Dx-PM and VES. Administrative and demographic data were also gathered. RESULTS: Compared with ACG nonfrail patients, ACG frail patients were older and less likely to be married; had a higher rate of falls, incontinence, and need for personal care; and had a poorer quality of life consistent with a clinical picture of frailty. The ACG frailty tag identified a frail population using the VES frailty determination as the accepted standard with moderate success (area under the curve 0.62). Adjusting for sex and functional status in backward logistic regression, the ACG frailty tag predicted hospitalizations (P <.032) and the VES frailty tool predicted emergency department visits (P <.016). CONCLUSIONS: The ACG frailty tag identified an elderly population with clinical characteristics of frailty and performed with moderate success compared with the VES. Both tools predicted adverse outcomes in older HMO members. A combined screening approach for frailty using predictive modeling with a function-based survey deserves further study.
Authors: Ariel R Green; Bruce Leff; Yongfei Wang; Erica S Spatz; Frederick A Masoudi; Pamela N Peterson; Stacie L Daugherty; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-12-29
Authors: Max Moldovan; Jyoti Khadka; Renuka Visvanathan; Steve Wesselingh; Maria C Inacio Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Giuseppe Rosiello; Carlotta Palumbo; Sophie Knipper; Marina Deuker; Lara Franziska Stolzenbach; Zhe Tian; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Fred Saad; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Louise Y Sun; Jack V Tu; Thais Coutinho; Michele Turek; Fraser D Rubens; Lisa McDonnell; Heather Tulloch; Anan Bader Eddeen; Lisa M Mielniczuk Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jarrod E Dalton; Michael B Rothberg; Neal V Dawson; Nikolas I Krieger; David A Zidar; Adam T Perzynski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Shane Shahrestani; Alexander M Ballatori; Xiao T Chen; Andy Ton; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Tyler R Chesney; Barbara Haas; Natalie G Coburn; Alyson L Mahar; Victoria Zuk; Haoyu Zhao; Frances C Wright; Amy T Hsu; Julie Hallet Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 14.766